13 Sep
2013
13 Sep
'13
9:39 p.m.
On 13-09-13 11:00 AM, Sam Whited wrote:
On 09/13/2013 01:17 PM, Dan Pearl wrote:
Yes, but it's not clear whether a contradance sequence would qualify
(for the purposes of copyright law) as either a "choreographic work" or
"original".
For example, under A. Defining "Choreographic Work" in [1], note the
first paragraph:
"Choreographic work" is not defined in the 1976 statute, although
the legislative history offers some minimal guidance. The House and
Senate Reports use identical language to say that the term is one
of several with "fairly settled meanings," and that it is not
"necessary to specify that 'choreographic works' do not include
social dance steps and simple routines."
Contradance sequences might be deemed "social dance steps" or "simple
routines", and so not "choreographic works". Or they might not: it would
be up to the courts, and the question has probably never come before the
courts. And quite possibly never will.
So I think it is (and possibly always will be) legally unclear whether a
contradance sequence [as distinct from a specific "expression" of that
sequence] is copyrightable. Ditto the question of whether calling that
sequence, or expressing that sequence "in your own notation",
constitutes copyright infringement.
-Michael
Last time I checked, dance sequences were not
copyrightable.
In the United States (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, just someone who
happens to be interested in copyright law and dancing) choreographic
works have been copyrightable since 1978 (see the Federal Copyright Law
of 1976). More information here [1].
[1]: http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/copyrigh.html